Let's do something "for the children." Has a nice ring to it. Who could possibly be against something for the children? But what? What's the most emotionally charged and least controversial thing I could do "for the children"? Ding!!
Got it. Protect them from perverts and sex offenders on the internet. Everyone wants to do that... especially those protective suburban parents in my mainly Republican district. Great plan, Nick.
Except in your typical liberal way, you screwed up. (And now you are in the unenviable position of having to put forth some really weak justifications..)
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill sponsored and pushed by Lampson called the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act.
Declan McCullagh has the best write up on the unintended? consequences of this poorly thought out and hastily pushed through mess of a bill that Lampson is running around proudly getting "good press" for.
The bill says that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.
That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user's account be retained for subsequent police inspection. (Can you say Big Brother?)
The SAFE Act represents the latest in Congress' efforts--some of which have raised free speech and privacy concerns--to crack down on sex offenders and internet predators. One bill introduced a year ago was even broader and would have forced Web sites and blogs to report illegal images. Another would require sex offenders to supply e-mail addresses and instant messaging user names.
Wednesday's vote caught Internet companies by surprise: the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that's supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation. It was introduced October 10, but has never received even one hearing or committee vote. In addition, the legislation
approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review.Not one Democrat opposed the SAFE Act. Two Republicans did: Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning presidential candidate from Texas, and Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia.
Frankly, we can't see how this will even be enforceable! Will Starbucks have to hire Wi-Fi snoops to prowl their shops looking over the shoulders of unsuspecting customers? Let's just hope the Senate will wake up and clean up Nick's little dog pile before this sees the light of day as actual law. How soon till we can vote this guy out of office?
No comments:
Post a Comment